Rest easy, beagles.
Another chemical scare looks like a false alarm.
Feb. 11, 2015 – © The
Wall Street Journal
The periodic scares
over chemicals in vaccines, foods and other products are typically a war on the
periodic table, and one compound that on all of the evidence deserves
exoneration is bisphenol-A, or BPA. The latest research deserves more attention
before more federal dollars are wasted.
BPA is used in the
lining of metal cans and plastics to ensure structural integrity and keep
things like E.coli out of food. It has been widely used for more than 50 years
as a coating in everything from soup cans to bike helmets. The chemical has
undergone testing in more than 4,500 studies over three decades, and the Food
and Drug Administration has twice affirmed, most recently in November, that
human exposure to low levels of BPA isn’t dangerous.
Anti-chemical
activists have nonetheless maligned BPA as a toxic substance that might act as
an “endocrine disrupter” by mimicking hormones in the body. BPA has been
allegedly linked to cancer, obesity, impotence, you name it. Many companies
such as the water-bottle maker Nalgene have stopped using it and label their
products “BPA-free.”
The latest study,
published in January by Justin Teeguarden of the Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory and FDA researchers, knocks down the idea that humans could be at risk
of absorbing high levels of BPA into the bloodstream. The researchers fed
people tomato soup with traceable BPA—and the body essentially neutralized 998
out of every 1,000 BPA molecules. The entire BPA sample moved through the body
in 24 hours.
The fear that BPA
might be absorbed into the bloodstream caught traction thanks in part to a 2013
study in which the authors slipped BPA solutions under the tongues of sleeping
beagles and found that the pups absorbed more BPA in their blood than other
animals had in previous studies. BPA opponents waved around the Snoopy scare as
evidence that the chemical was unsafe, calling on regulators to reconsider
their all-clear messages.
Now the question is:
How many more taxpayer-funded BPA studies are really necessary? The National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, an arm of the National Institutes
of Health, has shelled out more than $100 million for research on BPA since
1997. Three prominent BPA critics have received $20 million and have failed to
turn up causation between BPA and adverse health effects. Yet the studies
always conclude that more research is needed and so the grants are renewed.
Nice work if you can get it.
Scientists and
politicians claim there isn’t enough federal research funding to support all of
today’s important projects. Here’s one idea: Reallocate the money for redundant
BPA studies into something more productive.